Held: Appeal
allowed.
The facts are
sufficiently set out in the
judgment. E. J. Alex
Taylor for
Defendants-Appellants.
A. Kayode
(F. E. O. Euba with
him) for Plaintiff-Respondent.
The following
joint judgment was delivered :-
KINGDON,
C.]., NIGERIA, PETRIDES, C.].,
GOLD COAST, AND CAREY, ].
The facts as
they are set out in the
interlocutory judgment of the
trial Judge of the 16th July are
as follows :-
On the 12th
February, 1936, the defendants
entered into a bond for £500 as
sureties for ]. A. Williams as a
licensed auctioneer, the
condition of the bond being that
the said Williams" do and shall
in all things conform to all and
every of the conditions of the
said Sales by Auction
Ordinance." On the 26th
September, 1936, Williams sold
to one Oduntan the premises
known as No.8 John Street.
Oduntan subsequently sued
Williams and obtained judgment
against him for £137 10s. and £8
8s. costs, whereof £123 was
recovered as money paid for a
consideration which failed and
£14 10s. represented damages for
deceit in that the defendant
informed the plaintiff that he
had authority from the
mortgagees to sell this property
when in fact he had none. This
judgment has not been satisfied.
To these
facts it is only necessary to
add that before the sale to
Oduntan the property had been
put up for sale by auction which
proved abortive. The owners then
withdrew their instructions to
sell, but did not recover the
title deed from the auctioneer.
The
Attorney-General then sued the
defendants on their bond for the
amount of this judgment and
costs. In paragraph 3 of the
statement of claim the plaintiff
alleged that ]. A. Williams did
not conform to the provisions of
the Sales by Auction Ordinance
in that he sold the house to
Oduntan without the authority of
the mortgagees.
In the course
of his judgment of the 27th
July, 1937, the trial Judge
said: "In retaining money
received by him on behalf of the
vendors the auctioneer was
clearly acting dishonestly if
not criminally, and in selling
as he did he not only acted in
direct disregard of his
instruction, he also committed a
breach of section 22 of the
Sales by Auction Ordinance. That
is to say that in terms of the
bond he did not t in all
things conform to all and every
the provision of the Sales by
Auction Ordinance,' and his
sureties are liable
accordingly.'"
He therefore
gave judgment for the plaintiff
for £145 18s. and 25 guineas
costs.
Against this
judgment the defendants have
appealed to this Court.
Section 22 of
the Sales by Auction Ordinance
reads as follows :" The
employment of an auctioneer to
sell any property by public
auction, does not authorise him,
in C3$~ the public auction
proves abortive, to sell the
property by private contract."
This section
does not prohibit the
sale by an auctioneer of any
property the sale of which by
auction has proved abortive, as
in this case, but only provides
that the mere employment of an
auctioneer to sell any property
by public auction does not
authorise him, in case the
auction sale proves abortive, to
sell the property by private
contract. The auctioneer may of
course obtain authority in such
a case from the owner of the
property and the sale would be
perfectly valid.
As in our
opinion the auctioneer has not
done anything prohibited by
section 22 he has not by reason
of the fact that his
instructions had been withdrawn
at the time of sale committed a
breach of section 22.
Respondent's
Counsel admitted that he could
not contend that the auctioneer
committed a breach of section
22, but contended that he had
committed a breach of section 9
of the same Ordinance. By this
section
"If the
licensing authority shall
decide, or be directed by the
Governor to grant a licence he
shall require the applicant to
give security by bond in the
prescribed form for such sum
as may be prescribed for such
licence, with one or more
sureties approved by the
licensing authority, to
answer for the faithful
discharge of his office."
Respondent's
Counsel does not dispute that
the bond in the prescribed form
was given, but says that as the
auctioneer has not faithfully
discharged his office his
bondsmen are accordingly liable.
It not having
been even suggested that the
auctioneer did not give security
by bond in the prescribed form
as required by this section, we
are at a loss to understand how
it can be suggested that the
auctioneer committed a breach of
this section.
When one
reads the section and looks at
the prescribed form of bond in
the schedule to the Ordinance it
is obvious that the words " to
answer for the faithful
discharge of his office" means
no more
than that the
auctioneer" shall in all things
conform to all and every the
provisions of the Sales by
Auction Ordinance."
The bondsmen
did not stand sureties on a
general fidelity bond. There
being no evidence that the
auctioneer failed to conform to
any of the provisions of the
Sales by Auction Ordinance this
appeal must be allowed.
We allow the
appeal with costs and direct
that judgment be entered in the
Court below for the appellant
with costs.
We assess the
costs in this Court at 30
guineas and in the Court below
at 15 guineas.